On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Jason Molenda via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Is this really simpler? We could write it >> >> if (name == g_zero) >> return 0; >> else >> return UINT32_MAX; >> >> or we could do it that way, or it could be done the way it was originally >> written. >> >> tbh it seems like a style choice, and whoever wrote it originally may have >> preferred it being expressed that way. I can understand that you prefer it >> be expressed this way - but it's not actually any better or more readable, >> is it? Certainly the compiler is going to turn any variation we can come up >> with into the same instructions. >> > > Oh, I guess I should've said "make this code shorter" or something :) > We end up preferring ternary in llvm whenever possible, and I just > followed what was used there. > I largely agree it's a stylistic choice, FWIW. >
Also, I don't necessarily mind reverting this, as long as we agree on a style to follow. Thanks for your comments! -- Davide _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
